Mozzo, P., Procacci, C., Tacconi, A., Martini, P. T. & Andreis, I. A. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: Preliminary results. Eur. Radiol. 8, 1558–1564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050586 (1998).
Pinsky, H. M., Dyda, S., Pinsky, R. W., Misch, K. A. & Sarment, D. P. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements using cone-beam CT. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 35, 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/20987648 (2006).
Lofthag-Hansen, S., Huumonen, S., Grondahl, K. & Grondahl, H. G. Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 103, 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.01.001 (2007).
Bornstein, M. M., Lauber, R., Sendi, P. & von Arx, T. Comparison of periapical radiography and limited cone-beam computed tomography in mandibular molars for analysis of anatomical landmarks before apical surgery. J. Endod. 37, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.11.014 (2011).
Patel, S. New dimensions in endodontic imaging: Part 2. Cone beam computed tomography. Int. Endod. J. 42, 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01531.x (2009).
Fayad, M. I. et al. AAE and AAOMR joint position statement: Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics 2015 update. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 120, 508–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2015.07.033 (2015).
Ng, Y. L., Mann, V., Rahbaran, S., Lewsey, J. & Gulabivala, K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: Systematic review of the literature—Part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int. Endod. J. 41, 6–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01323.x (2008).
Ricucci, D., Russo, J., Rutberg, M., Burleson, J. A. & Spangberg, L. S. A prospective cohort study of endodontic treatments of 1,369 root canals: Results after 5 years. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 112, 825–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.08.003 (2011).
Liang, Y. H. et al. The validity of cone-beam computed tomography in measuring root canal length using a gold standard. J. Endod. 39, 1607–1610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.08.001 (2013).
Jeger, F. B., Janner, S. F., Bornstein, M. M. & Lussi, A. Endodontic working length measurement with preexisting cone-beam computed tomography scanning: A prospective, controlled clinical study. J. Endod. 38, 884–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.03.024 (2012).
Janner, S. F., Jeger, F. B., Lussi, A. & Bornstein, M. M. Precision of endodontic working length measurements: A pilot investigation comparing cone-beam computed tomography scanning with standard measurement techniques. J. Endod. 37, 1046–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.05.005 (2011).
Connert, T., Hulber, J. M., Godt, A., Lost, C. & ElAyouti, A. Accuracy of endodontic working length determination using cone beam computed tomography. Int. Endod. J. 47, 698–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12206 (2014).
Shabahang, S., Goon, W. W. & Gluskin, A. H. An in vivo evaluation of Root ZX electronic apex locator. J. Endod. 22, 616–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80033-1 (1996).
ElAyouti, A. et al. Consistency of apex locator function: A clinical study. J. Endod. 35, 179–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.017 (2009).
Ugur Aydin, Z. & Goller Bulut, D. Determination of root canal length up to perforation area using different electronic apex locators and CBCT images obtained at different voxel sizes: A comparative ex vivo study. Chin. J. Dent. Res. 24, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.cjdr.b1105877 (2021).
Tufenkci, P. & Kalayci, A. Evaluation of the accuracy of different apex locators in determining the working length during root canal retreatment. J. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospects 14, 125–129. https://doi.org/10.34172/joddd.2020.026 (2020).
Kim, E., Marmo, M., Lee, C. Y., Oh, N. S. & Kim, I. K. An in vivo comparison of working length determination by only root-ZX apex locator versus combining root-ZX apex locator with radiographs using a new impression technique. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 105, e79–e83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.009 (2008).
Jacobs, R., Salmon, B., Codari, M., Hassan, B. & Bornstein, M. M. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: Recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health 18, 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5 (2018).
Pauwels, R. et al. Effective radiation dose and eye lens dose in dental cone beam CT: Effect of field of view and angle of rotation. Br. J. Radiol. 87, 20130654. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20130654 (2014).
Meulepas, J. M. et al. Radiation exposure from pediatric CT scans and subsequent cancer risk in the Netherlands. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 111, 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy104 (2019).
Leontiev, W. et al. Suitability of magnetic resonance imaging for guided endodontics: Proof of principle. J. Endod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2021.03.011 (2021).
Ariji, Y., Ariji, E., Nakashima, M. & Iohara, K. Magnetic resonance imaging in endodontics: A literature review. Oral Radiol. 34, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-017-0301-0 (2018).
Ploder, O. et al. Reperfusion of autotransplanted teeth—Comparison of clinical measurements by means of dental magnetic resonance imaging. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 92, 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.116505 (2001).
Iohara, K. et al. Assessment of pulp regeneration induced by stem cell therapy by magnetic resonance imaging. J. Endod. 42, 397–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.11.021 (2016).
Juerchott, A. et al. Differentiation of periapical granulomas and cysts by using dental MRI: A pilot study. Int. J. Oral Sci. 10, 17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-018-0017-y (2018).
Lizio, G. et al. Differential diagnosis between a granuloma and radicular cyst: Effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging. Int. Endod. J. 51, 1077–1087. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12933 (2018).
Geibel, M. A. et al. Characterisation of apical bone lesions: Comparison of MRI and CBCT with histological findings—A case series. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 10, 197–211 (2017).
Juerchott, A. et al. In vivo comparison of MRI- and CBCT-based 3D cephalometric analysis: Beginning of a non-ionizing diagnostic era in craniomaxillofacial imaging? Eur. Radiol. 30, 1488–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06540-x (2020).
Juerchott, A. et al. In vivo reliability of 3D cephalometric landmark determination on magnetic resonance imaging: A feasibility study. Clin. Oral Investig. 24, 1339–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03015-7 (2020).
Hilgenfeld, T. et al. Use of dental MRI for radiation-free guided dental implant planning: A prospective, in vivo study of accuracy and reliability. Eur. Radiol. 30, 6392–6401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07262-1 (2020).
Duttenhoefer, F. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in zirconia-based dental implantology. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 26, 1195–1202. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12430 (2015).
Probst, F. A. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging based computer-guided dental implant surgery—A clinical pilot study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 22, 612–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12939 (2020).
Hilgenfeld, T. et al. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography, dental magnetic resonance imaging, and intraoral radiography for detecting peri-implant bone defects at single zirconia implants—An in vitro study. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 29, 922–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13348 (2018).
Flugge, T. et al. Virtual implant planning and fully guided implant surgery using magnetic resonance imaging—Proof of principle. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 31, 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13592 (2020).
Timme, M. et al. Imaging of root canal treatment using ultra high field 9.4T UTE-MRI—A preliminary study. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 49, 20190183. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190183 (2020).
Dragan, O. C., Farcasanu, A. S., Campian, R. S. & Turcu, R. V. Human tooth and root canal morphology reconstruction using magnetic resonance imaging. Clujul Med. 89, 137–142. https://doi.org/10.15386/cjmed-555 (2016).
Capuani, S. et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance microimaging for the qualitative assessment of root canal treatment: An ex vivo preliminary study. Diagnostics (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11061012 (2021).
Prager, M. et al. Dental MRI using a dedicated RF-coil at 3 Tesla. J. Craniomaxillofac Surg. 43, 2175–2182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.011 (2015).
Hilgenfeld, T. et al. PETRA, MSVAT-SPACE and SEMAC sequences for metal artefact reduction in dental MR imaging. Eur. Radiol. 27, 5104–5112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4901-1 (2017).
Flügge, T. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of intraoral hard and soft tissues using an intraoral coil and FLASH sequences. Eur. Radiol. 26, 4616–4623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4254-1 (2016).
Sedlacik, J. et al. Optimized 14 + 1 receive coil array and position system for 3D high-resolution MRI of dental and maxillomandibular structures. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 45, 20150177. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150177 (2016).
Johanson, G. A. & Brooks, G. P. Initial scale development: Sample size for pilot studies. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 70, 394–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355692 (2010).
Lo Giudice, R. et al. Accuracy of periapical radiography and CBCT in endodontic evaluation. Int. J. Dent. 2018, 2514243. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2514243 (2018).
Sjogren, U., Hagglund, B., Sundqvist, G. & Wing, K. Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J. Endod. 16, 498–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4 (1990).
Hilgenfeld, T. et al. High-resolution single tooth MRI with an inductively coupled intraoral coil-can MRI compete with CBCT? Investig. Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000890 (2022).
